Candidates Can't Be Rejected Solely Because They Had Higher Degrees Than Prescribed Qualification : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a candidate possessing a higher degree of qualification cannot be rejected solely because a lower degree of qualification is required for a particular post.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the Appellants, who are post-graduates in Microbiology, Food Science, and Technology, and applied for the post of Food Safety Officer (“FSO”) were disqualified during the recruitment process on the grounds that their qualifications did not meet the criteria specified in the advertisement.

The appellants challenged their disqualification before the Jharkhand High Court. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court ruled against the appellants, holding that the advertisement required a Bachelor's degree in the specified subjects and that a Master's degree in Microbiology or Food Science did not qualify. The recruitment advertisement mentioned that the candidate having a master's degree in relevant subjects (other than Chemistry) would be excluded from the selection process.

Aggrieved by the High Court's ruling, the Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned ruling, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta stressed that the term "degree" in recruitment advertisements and statutory provisions should be interpreted to include Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate degrees unless explicitly excluded.

In this regard, the Court referred to Section 22(3) of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956, which defines "degree" to include Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate degrees. The Court held that unless there is a specific exclusion, the term "degree" should be interpreted to include all three levels of degrees.

“The term 'degree' is defined under Section 22(3) the UGC Act, which states that the 'degree' means the 'Bachelor's Degree', 'Master's Degree' and the 'Doctorate Degree'. Thus, wherever the word 'degree' is used, unless a specific exclusion is provided, the same would include within its scope and ambit all three, 'Bachelor's Degree', 'Master's Degree' and a 'Doctorate Degree'.”, the court observed.

The Court found that the exclusion of candidates with Master's degrees in relevant subjects (other than Chemistry) was arbitrary and lacked any rational basis. Referring to the case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2015) 17 SCC 709, the Court emphasized that a higher qualification (Master's degree) should not disqualify a candidate when a lower qualification (Bachelor's degree) is acceptable.

“we have no hesitation in concluding that if a candidate, having undertaken a degree course in “Chemistry” subject, desires to apply for the post of FSO, he must possess a master's degree in that subject. However, if a candidate has taken college education in the subjects of food technology; dairy technology; biotechnology; oil technology; agricultural science; veterinary science; biochemistry or microbiology, then such a candidate would be qualified for the FSO post, if he holds any one of the degrees, i.e., either graduation, post-graduation or doctorate degree in any of these subjects. There is no logic or rationale behind excluding the candidates having master's or a doctorate degree in these subjects from staking a claim to the post of FSO because such an interpretation would be totally unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional.”, the court observed.

State Government Has No Authority To Impose Additional Restrictions Or Interpretations On Qualifications For Post Of FSO As Prescribed By Central Government

Further, the Court observed that the State of Jharkhand had no authority to impose additional restrictions or interpretations on the qualifications for the post of FSO beyond what was prescribed by the Central Government because the power to prescribe qualifications for the post of FSO lies exclusively with the Central Government.

“Thus, the scope of powers to be exercised by the State Government is limited only to the extent of formulating the modalities for carrying out the functions and duties assigned to the FSO under the FSS Act. Clearly thus, the FSS Act does not permit the State Government to transgress into the field of prescribing the qualifications for the posts of FSO, which lies within the exclusive domain of the Central Government.”, the court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal and held that the appellants, who held Master's degrees in Microbiology and Food Science, were qualified for the post of FSO under the advertisement.

Also, the Court directed the respondents to consider the appellants for appointment from the stage they were disqualified (i.e., the interview stage). If no vacancies were available, the Court ordered the creation of supernumerary posts to accommodate the appellants. Further, a clarification was made that the appellants, if appointed, would not be entitled to back wages but would receive all service benefits on a notional basis. Their seniority would be fixed below the last candidate selected in the original recruitment process to avoid disturbing the seniority of already appointed candidates.

Case Title: CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anup Kumar, AOR Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, Adv. Ms. Shruti Singh, Adv. Ms. Pragya Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Awanish Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Neha Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Shivam Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR Ms. Meenakshi Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR Mr. Parth Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, AOR Ms. Kavya Roy Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Rohit Gupta, Adv.